V. I. Lenin

Concerning Vekhi{3}

Published:Novy DyenNo. 15, December 13, 1909. Signed:V. Ilyin.

      Published according to the text inNovy Dyen.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,[1974],

      Moscow,Volume 16,

      pages123-131.Translated:Transcription\Markup:R. CymbalaCopyleft:V. I. Lenin Internet Archive (www.marxists.org)
      © 2004

      Permission is granted to copy and/or distribute this document under the
      terms of theGNU Free Documentation License.

Thewell-known symposiumVekhi, compiled from
contributions by the most influential Constitutional-Democratic publicists,
which has run through several editions in a short time and has been
rapturously received by the whole reactionary press, is a real sign of the
times. However much the Cadet newspapers do to “rectify” particular
passages inVekhithat are excessively nauseating, however much it
is repudiated by some Cadets who are quite powerless to influence the
policy of the Constitutional-Democratic Party as a whole or are aiming to
deceive the masses as to the true significance of this policy, it is an
unquestionable fact that “Vekhi”has expressed the
unmistakable essence of modern Cadetism. The party of the Cadets is
the party ofVekhi.

Prizingabove everything the development of the political and
class-consciousness of the masses, working-class democrats should welcomeVekhias a magnificent exposure of the essence of the political
trend of the Cadets by their ideological leaders. The gentlemen who have
writtenVekhiare:

Berdayev, Bulgakov, Herschensohn, Kistyakovsky, Struve, Frank and
Izgoyev. The very names of these well-known deputies, Well-known renegades
and well-known Cadets, are eloquent enough. The authors ofVekhispeak as real ideological leaders, of a whole social trends They give us in
concise outline a complete encyclopaedia on questions of philosophy,
religion, politics, publicist literature, and appraisals of the whole
liberation movement and the whole history of Russian democracy. By givingVekhithe subtitle “A Collection of Articles on the Russian
Intelligentsia” the authors under state the actual subject-matter of their
publication, for, with them, the “intelligentsia” in fact appears as the
spiritual leader, inspirer and mouthpiece of the whole Russian democracyand the whole Russian liberation movement.Vekhiis a most
significant landmark on the road of Russian Cadetism and Russian liberalism
in general towards acomplete breakwith the Russian liberation
movement, with all its main aims and fundamental traditions.

Thisencyclopaedia of liberal renegacyembraces
three main subjects:

1) the struggle against the ideological principles of the whole world
outlook of Russian (and international) democracy;

2) repudiation and vilification of the liberation movement of recent years;

3) an open proclamation of its “flunkey” sentiments (and a corresponding
“flunkey” policy) in relation to the Octobrist bourgeoisie,, the old
regime and the entire old Russia in general.

Theauthors ofVekhistart from the philosophical bases
of the “intellectualist” world outlook. The book is permeated through and
through with bitter opposition to materialism, which is qualified as
nothing but dogmatism, metaphysics, “the most elementary and lowest form
of philosophising” (p. 4—references are to the first edition ofVekhi). Positivism is condemned because “for us” (i.e., the
Russian “intelligentsia” thatVekhiannihilates) it was
“identified with materialist metaphysics” or was interpreted
“exclusively in the spirit of materialism” (15), while “no mystic,, no
believer, can deny scientific positivism in science” (11). Don’t laugh!
“Hostility to idealist and religious mystical tendencies” (6)—such is
the charge with whichVekhiattacks the “intelligentsia”.
“Yurkevich, at any rate, was a real philosopher in comparison with
Chernyshevsky” (4).

Holdingthis point of view,Vekhivery naturally thunders
incessantly against the atheism of the “intelligentsia” and strives with
might and main to re-establish the religious world outlook in its
entirety. Having demolished Chernyshevsky as a philosopher it is quite
natural thatVekhidemolishes Belinsky as a publicist. Belinsky,
Dobrolyubov and Chernyshevsky were the leaders of the “intellectuals”
(134, 56, 32, 17 and elsewhere). Chaadayev, Vladimir Solovyov, Dostoyevsky
were “not intellectuals at all”. The former werethe leaders of a trend against whichVekhiis fighting to the
death. The latter"tirelessly maintained"the very same things thatVekhistands for today, but “they were unheeded, the
intelligentsia passed them by”, declares the preface toVekhi.

Thereader can already see from this that it is not the
intelligentsia” thatVekhiis attacking. This is only an
artificial and misleading manner of expression. The attack is being pursued
all along the line against democracy, against the democratic world
outlook. And since it is inconvenient for the ideological leaders of a
party that advertises itself as “constitutional” and “democratic” to
call things by their true names, they have borrowed their terminology from
theMoskovskiye

Vedomosti.{4}They are not renouncing democracy (what a scandalous
libel!) but only “intellectualism”. Belinsky’s letter to Gogol, declaresVekhi, is a “lurid and classical expression of intellectualist
sentiment” (56). “The history of our publicist literature, after
Belinsky, in the sense of an understanding of life, is a sheer nightmare”
(82).

Well,well. The serf peasants’ hostility to serfdom is obviously an
“intellectualist” sentiment. The history of the protest and struggle of
the broadest masses of the population from 1861 to 1905 against the
survivals of feudalism through out the whole system of Russian life is
evidently a “sheer nightmare”. Or, perhaps, in the opinion of our wise
and educated authors, Belinsky’s Sentiments in the letter to Gogol did not
depend on the feelings of the serf peasants? The history of our publicist
literature did not depend on the indignation of the popular masses against
the survivals of feudal oppression?

MoskovskiyeVedomostihas always tried to prove that Russian
democracy, beginning with Belinsky at least, in no way expresses the
interests of the broadest masses of the population in the struggle for the
elementary rights of the people, violated by feudal institutions, but
expresses only “intellectualist sentiments”.

Vekhihas the same programme asMoskovskiye Vedomostiboth in philosophy and in publicist matters. In philosophy, however, the
liberal renegades decided to tell the whole truth, to revealalltheir programme (war on materialism and the materialist interpretation of
positivism, restoration of mysticism and the mystical world outlook),
whereas onpublicist subjects they prevaricate and hedge and Jesuitise. They have
broken with the most fundamental ideas of democracy, the most elementary
democratic tendencies, but pretend that they are breaking only with
“intellectualism”. The liberal bourgeoisie has decisively turned away
from defence of popular rights to defence of institutions hostile to the
people. But the liberal politicians want to retain the title of
“democrats”.

Thesame trick that was performed with Belinsky’s letter to Gogol and
the history of Russian publicist literature is being applied to the history
of the recent movement.

Asa matter of factVekhiattacks only the
intelligentsia that was a voice of the democratic movement and only for
that which showed it to be a real participant in this
movement.Vekhifuriously attacks the intelligentsia precisely
because this “little underground sect came out into the broad light of
day, gained a multitude of disciples and for a time became ideologically
influential and even actually powerful” (176). The liberals sympathised
with the “intelligentsia” and sometimes supported it secretlyas long
asit remainedmerelya little underground sect, until it
gained a multitude of disciples and became actually powerful; that is to
say, the liberals sympathised with democracy as long as it did not set in
motion the real masses, for, as long as the masses were not drawn in, it
only served the self-seeking aims of liberalism, it only helped the upper
section of the liberal bourgeoisie to climb a little nearer to power. The
liberal turned his back on democracy when it drew in the masses, who began
to realise theirownaims and uphold theirowninterests. Under the cover of outcries against the democratic
“intelligentsia”the war of the Cadets is in fact being waged against
the democratic movement of the masses. One of the innumerable and
obvious revelations of this inVekhiis its declaration that the
great social movement of the end of the eighteenth century in France was
“an example of a sufficiently prolonged intellectualist revolution,
displaying all its spiritual potentialities” (57).

Good,is it not? The French movement of the end of the eighteenth
century, please note, was not an example of the democratic movement of the
masses in its profoundest and broadest form, but an example of
“intellectualist” revolution! Since democratic aims have never anywhere
in the world been achieved without a movement of ahomogeneoustype it is perfectly obvious that the ideological leaders of liberalism are
breaking with democracy.

Thefeature of the Russian intelligentsia thatVekhiin veighs
against is thenecessaryaccompaniment and expression ofanydemocratic movement. “The admixture of the political
radicalism of intellectualist ideas to the social radicalism of popular

			      instincts[1]was achieved with amazing rapidity” (141)—and this was “not simply a
political mistake, not simply an error of tactics. The mistake here was a
moral one.” Where there are no martyred popular masses, there can be no
democratic movement. And what distinguishes a democratic movement from a
mere “riot” is that it proceeds under the banner of certain radical
political ideas. Democratic movements and democratic ideas are not only
politically erroneous, are not only out of place tactically but are morally
sinful—such in essence is the real opinion ofVekhi, which does
not differ one iota from the real opinions of

Pobedonostsev.{5}Pobedonostsev only said more honestly and candidly
what Struve, Izgoyev, Frank and Co. are saying.

WhenVekhiproceeds to define more precisely the sub stance of
the hateful “intellectualist” ideas, it naturally speaks about “Left”
ideas in general and Narodnik and Marxist ideas in particular. The
Narodniks are accused of “spurious love for the peasantry” and the
Marxists “for the proletariat” (9). Both are blasted to smithereens for
“idolisation of the people” (59, 59–60). To the odious “intellectual”
“god is the people, the sole aim is the happiness of the majority”
(159). “The stormy oratory of the atheistic Left bloc” (29)—this is
what impressed itself most on the memory of the Cadet Bulgakov in the
Second Duma and particularly aroused his indignation. And there is not the
slightest doubt that Bulgakov has expressed here, somewhat more
conspicuously thanothers, the general Cadet psychology, he has voiced the cherished thoughts
of the whole Cadet Party.

Thatfor a liberal the distinction between Narodism and Marxism is
obliterated is not accidental, but inevitable. It is not the “trick” of
the writer (who is perfectly aware of the distinction) but a logical
expression of the present nature of liberalism. At thepresenttime what the liberal bourgeoisie in Russia dreads and abominates is not so
much the socialist movement of the working class in Russia as the
democratic movement both of the workers and the peasants, i.e., it dreads
and abominates what Narodism and Marxism have in common, their defence of
democracy by appealing to the masses. It is characteristic of the present
period that liberalism in Russia has decisively turned against democracy;
quite naturally it is not concerned either with the distinctions within
democracy or with the further aims, vistas and prospects which will be
unfolded when democracy is achieved.

Vekhisimply teems with catchwords like “idolisation of the
people”. This is not surprising, for the liberal bourgeoisie, which has
become frightened of the people, has no alter native but to shout about the
democrats’ “idolisation of the people”. The retreat cannot but be covered
by an extra loud roll of the drums. In point of fact, it is impossible to
deny outright that it was in the shape of the workers’ and peasants’
deputies that the first two Dumas expressed the real interests, demands and
views of the mass of the workers and peasants. Yet it was just these

			 “intellectualist”[2]deputies who infected the Cadets with their abysmalhatred of the
“Lefts”because of the exposure of the Cadets’ everlasting retreats
from democracy. In point of fact, it is impossible to deny outright the
justice of the “four-point electoral system”

demand{6}; yet no political leader who is at all honest has the
slightest doubt that in contemporary Russia elections on the “four-point”
system, really democratic elections,would give an overwhelming majority to the Trudovik deputies together with
the deputies of the workers’ party.

Nothingremains for the back-sliding liberal bourgeoisie but to conceal
its break with democracy by means of catch words from the vocabulary ofMoskovskiye VedomostiandNovoye

Vremya{7}the whole symposiumVekhipositively teems with
them.

Vekhiis a veritable torrent of reactionary mud poured on the
head of democracy. Of course the publicists ofNovoye
Vremya—Rozanov Menshikov and A. Stolypin—have hastened to saluteVekhiwith their kisses. Of course, Anthony, Bishop of

Volhynia,{8}is enraptured with this publication of the leaders of
liberalism.

“Whenthe intellectual,” saysVekhi, “reflected upon his
duty to the people, he never arrived at the thought that the idea of
personal responsibility expressed in the principle of duty must be applied
not only to him, the intellectual, but to the people as well” (139). The
democrat reflected on the ex tension of the rights and liberty of the
people, clothing this thought in words about the “duty” of the upper
classes to the people. The democrat could never and will never arrive at
the thought that in a country prior to reform or in a country with a June 3
constitution there could be any question of “responsibility” of the
people to the ruling classes. To arrive at this thought the democrat, or
so-called democrat, must be completely converted into a
counter-revolutionary liberal.

“Egoism,self-assertion is a great power,” we read inVekhi,
“this is what makes the Western bourgeoisie a mighty unconscious
instrument of God’s will on earth” (95). This is nothing more than a
paraphrase flavoured with incense of the celebrated “Enrichissez
vous!—enrich yourselves!”—or of our Russian motto: “We put our stake
on the

strong!”{9}When the bourgeoisie were helping the people to fight for
freedom they declared this struggle to be a divine cause. When they became
frightened of the people and turned to supporting all kinds of medievalism
against the people, they declared as a divine cause “egoism”,
self-enrichment, a chauvinistic foreign policy, etc. Such was the case all
over Europe. It is being repeated in Russia.

“Therevolution should virtually and formally have culminated with the
edict of October 17” (136). This is the alphaand omega of Octobrism, i.e., of the programme of the counter-revolutionary
bourgeoisie. The Octobrists have always said this and acted openly in
accordance with it. The Cadets actedsurreptitiouslyin the same
way (beginning from October 17), but at the same time wanted to keep up the
pretence of being democrats. If the cause of democracy is to be successful,
a complete, clear and open demarcation between the democrats and the
renegades is the most effective and necessary thing.Vekhimust be
utilised for this necessary act. “We must have the courage to confess at
last,” writes the renegade Izgoyev, “that in our State Dumas the vast
majority of the deputies, with the exception of three or four dozen Cadets
and Octobrists, have not displayed knowledge required for the government
and reformation of Russia” (208). Well, of course, how could clod-hopping
Trudovik deputies or some sort of working men undertake such a task? It
needs a majority of Cadets and Octobrists and that needs a Third Duma....

Andso that the people and their idolators should realise their
“responsibility” to the bosses in the Third Duma and Third Duma Russia
the people must be taught—with the assistance of Anthony, Bishop of
Volhynia —“repentance” (Vekhi, 26), “humility” (49),
opposition to “the pride of the intellectual” (52), “obedience” (55),
“the plain, coarse food of old Moses’ Ten Commandments” (51), struggle
against “the legion of devils who have entered the gigantic body of
Russia” (68). If the peasants elect Trudoviks and the workers elect
Social-Democrats, this of course is just such devils? work, for by their
true nature the people, as Katkov and Pobedonostsev discovered long ago,
entertain “hatred for the intelligentsia” (87; read: for democracy).

Therefore,Vekhiteaches us, Russian citizens must “bless
this government which alone with its bayonets and prisons still protects us
[“the intellectuals”] from popular fury” (88).

Thistirade is good because it is frank; it is useful because it
reveals the truth about the real essence of the policy of the whole
Constitutional-Democratic Party throughout the period 1905-09, This tirade
is good because it reveals concisely and vividly the whole spirit ofVekhi. AndVekhiis good because it discloses the whole
spirit of therealpolicy of the Russian liberals and of the
Russian Cadets included among them. That is why the Cadet polemic withVekhiand the Cadet renunciation ofVekhiare nothing but hypocrisy,
sheer idle talk, for in reality the Cadets collectively, as a party, as a
social force, have pursued and are pursuing the policy ofVekhiand noother. The calls to take part in the elections to the
Bulygin Duma in August and September 1905, the betrayal of the cause of
democracy at the end of the same year, their persistent fear of the people
and the popular movement and systematic opposition to the deputies of the
workers and peasants in the first two Dumas, the voting for the budget, the
speeches of Karaulov on religion and Berezovsky on the agrarian question in
the Third Duma, the visit to London—these are only a few of the
innumerablelandmarksof justthatpolicy which has been
ideologically proclaimed inVekhi.

Russiandemocracy cannot make a single step forward until it
understands the essence of this policy and the class roots of it.

[1]“Of the martyred popular masses” is the phrase used on the same page,
two lines down.  —Lenin

[2]Vekhi’sdistortion of the ordinary meaning of the word
“intellectual” is really laughable. We have only to look through the list
of deputies in the first two Dumas to see at once the overwhelming majority
of peasants among the Trudoviks, the predominance of workers among the
Social-Democrats and the concentration of the mass of the bourgeois
intelligentsia among the Cadets.  —Lenin

{3}Prior to the appearance of this article, Lenin delivered a public
lecture in Liège on October 16 (29), 1909, “The Ideology of the
Counter-revolutionary Bourgeoisie”. On November 13 (26), 1909, Lenin
delivered a lecture on the same subject in Paris: “The Ideology of the
Counter-revolutionary Liberalism (The Success ofVekhiand Its
Social Significance)”. The plan of the Paris lecture is set out in a
poster preserved in the archives of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism,
Central Committee of the C.P.S.U. It is divided into the following parts:

“I. The philosophy against whichVekhifights and the Duma
speeches of the Cadet Karaulov,

II. Belinsky and Chernyshevsky annihilated byVekhi.

III. Why do the liberals hate the ‘intellectualist’ Russian revolution and
its French ‘sufficiently prolonged’ model?

IV.Vekhiand the Lefts in Russia. Cadets and Octobrists. The
‘sacred cause’ of the Russian bourgeoisie.

V. What did the democratic revolution in Russia gain by losing its
liberal-bourgeois ‘allies’?

VI.Vekhiand Milyukov’s speeches at the election meetings in
St. Petersburg. How Milyukov criticised the illegal revolutionary newspaper
at these meetings.”

{4}Moskovskiye Vedomosti(Moscow Recorder)—a daily
newspaper founded in 1756; beginning with the 1860s, it expressed the views
of the most reactionary monarchist elements among the landlords and clergy;
from 1905 onwards, it was one of the chief organs of the Black Hundreds. It
was closed down soon after the October Revolution of 1917.

{5}Pobedonostsev, E. P.—a reactionary Statesman of tsarist
Russia, Procurator-General of the Synod. He was virtually head of the
government and chief inspirer of unbridled feudalistic reaction during the
rule of Alexander III and he continued to play a prominent part under
Nicholas XI as well.

{6}The “four-point electoral system”—designation of the
democratic electoral system, which includes four demands: universal, equal,
direct suffrage and secret ballot.

{7}Novoye Vremya(New Times)—a daily newspaper
published in St. Petersburg from 1868 to October 1917. Moderately liberal
at the outset, it became after 1876 the organ of reactionary circles of the
nobility and the bureaucracy. The paper was hostile not only to the
revolutionary, but even to the liberal-bourgeois movement. After 1905 it
became an organ of the Black Hundreds. Lenin calledNovoye Vremyathe acme of venality in the press.

{8}Anthony, Bishop of Volhynia—an extreme reactionary.

p. 129

{9}The words “Enrich yourselves, gentlemen, and you will become
electors” are ascribed to Guizot, head of the French Government during the
years of the July monarchy (1830-48).